What Tom Friedman doesn't know about hydrogen...
... could probably fill a book. A really big book. However, never let it be said that a lack of knowledge stopped Friedman from opining on a subject. Friedman's most recent column focuses mainly on research into fusion reactors which may or may not ever be a viable technology. It's certainly too early to tell since we have yet to produce a working prototype of a controlled fusion reactor. However, in dissing fusion, Friedman also needlessly takes a swipe at hydrogen. There is no doubt that the predictions of a decade ago that we would have mainstream hydrogen fuel cell powered cars available this decade were wrong. But there is a huge difference compared to fusion. Fuel cells do work. They are on the road today. Daimler and General Motors each have running test fleets with over 100 vehicles running. GM and Ford have each accumulated well over half a million test miles with hydrogen vehicles in the hands of ordinary users. Honda is producing, albeit very slowly, the FCX Clarity. Hydrogen Discoveries points out ten things that Friedman either doesn't know or is ignoring about hydrogen. Even known suppressors of efficiency technology like Toyota and Honda both remain extremely bullish on fuel cells, as do Daimler, GM, Hyundai and others. Friedman? Not so much. Thanks to Greg for the tip!
[Source: Hydrogen Discoveries]
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 3)
Carney 12:29PM (3/17/2009)
How about being fair and actually directly linking to the Friedman column you go out of your way to bash?
In any event, whatever his other flaws, Friedman is exactly right on this issue. The alternative energy area attracts hordes of quacks, charlatans, snake-oil salesmen, gullible marks, Svengali-addled politicians, and handout seeking businesses (the technical term is "rent-seeking").
Of all them, next to perhaps perpetual motion, the worst hoax and fraud is hydrogen.
http://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/the-hydrogen-hoax
And while fission has many benefits, the nuclear waste it produces leads to hysterical mindless knee-jerk NIMBYism (and politicians who pander to it) that has prevented us from storing it at the site that scientists agree is the best place, in Yucca Mountain.
To avoid that problem, and to produce even more abundant and clean burning energy, fusion is the future.
Reply
Carney 12:29PM (3/17/2009)
Here's the column, by the way.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/15/opinion/15friedman.html?_r=1
giyad 12:51PM (3/17/2009)
People need to stop bashing hydrogen like its "the worst hoax and fraud"... Its better than gasoline, it may not be more efficient than batteries, but its still a step up from fossil fuels. Its not a hoax, if anything its a stepping stone in the right direction. Hydrogen fuel cells are currently a better solution than batteries, provided we have the infrastructure (which we don't). However, once batteries are perfected, and quick charge becomes standard, who would even suggest hydrogen???
Carney 2:21PM (3/17/2009)
giyad, please read the article I posted.
Hydrogen IS a fossil fuel, since that's what it's made from. Electrolyzing water is even more unaffordable.
You get way more energy output for way less cost by just using that natural gas directly as a vehicle fuel (better yet from my perspective turning it or coal into methanol for a flex fuel car), or pushing that electricity down the grid into a battery electric vehicle.
Charles 3:24PM (3/17/2009)
Bravo Carney! I was hoping someone would have already blasted Mr. Abuelsamid for his apparent fanboyism of hydrogen and random hatred of Tom Friedman. The only viable way to make hydrogen currently is through reforming natural gas, which is a fossil fuel and does result in CO2 emissions. The electrolysis process is only about 30% efficient, which means that 3 electric cars could be powered with the same electricity it would take to make hydrogen fuel for 1 fuel cell car!
charlie 3:54PM (3/17/2009)
I agree with whatever Friedman might have said... and probably then some.
Hydrogen IS a scam. It IS worse than gasoline.
Why? because hydrogen has to be created from something. The cheapest way is from fossil fuels, of which natural gas is the most talked about because it is the cleanest. But it would actually be cleaner, cheaper, and more efficient to just to run natural gas internal combustion cars after you add in the inefficiencies of the conversions process and either compressing or liquefying the hydrogen for storage.
And then as most environmentalists fantasize about it, 100% emissions-free hydrogen form water and renewable energy: Same inefficiencies as above in terms of converting the water and compressing it for storage, when you could just charge batteries. Automotive hydrogen systems don't really have higher energy capacities than modern batteries, and even to get that they have to store it either at 10,000psi or in liquid form at -423*F in a space-age insulated container, and your fuel will still evaporate constantly in the latter.
Batteries take a while to charge but when the capacity gets up to ~200 miles on a charge then you only need more range on the longest road trips. It would probably be more efficient for the average person to just rent a gasoline car for those trips than for the development of all this battery swap infrastructure that people talk about. Which would be fine.
Carney 3:22PM (3/18/2009)
Thanks, Charles and charlie.
Scott 8:34PM (3/21/2009)
You do not have a clue what you are talking about, I am not selling anything but I have built my own fuel cell and doubled my fuel mileage.
Why not put your money where your mouth is and get unstuck from the past. We are not charlatans or stupid, or scammers, you are just an idiot that believes all the lies being told to you, this is your OPINION, NOTHING more.
Do the work so you know what you are talking about, because it is you that is going to like like the imbecile you are in the end.
At least do some research on the thousands upon thousands of people reporting to fuel mileage, 20% to 30% is a gimme, well many like my self have achieved 50%, some 80%, and yes some have not needed gas anymore.
Stanly Mire, Joe of the Joe cell, Danial Dingle, Denny Cline, Yul Brown, and others.
You sir are a moron. I am tired of your kind and your pathetic attempt to look like you know what you are talking about when you clearly have done no work on it PERIOD, or you would be raving about it like me and thousands of others.
The earth is not flat, heaver than air flight is possible, microwaves are not a scam, and the law of thermodynamics is a lie to keep you enslaved.
An atom goes against the law of thermodynamics, and so do orbits, they cant say it stays in motion when there is a gravitational force involved, look up repulsion, anyone that can think for themselves instead of quoting outdated textbooks like you do sir is not to bright.
Good day.
Chris M 7:01PM (3/22/2009)
Scott, I think you've misunderstood several things. First, the device you made was NOT a "fuel cell", it was an "electrolysis cell".
A "fuel cell" combines a fuel (usually hydrogen) with an oxidizer (oxygen or air) in an electrochemical reaction that produces electrical power. Hydrogen fuel cells require exotic materials like platinum, making them very expensive, which is why we don't see H2 fuel cell cars for sale. An "Electrolysis cell" is the exact opposite of a fuel cell, using up electrical energy to split a substance into its constituent elements, water electrolysis results in hydrogen (H2) and oxygen (O2). As you've learned, a water electrolysis cell doesn't require exotic materials and is relatively inexpensive to make. However, a water electrolysis cell can't "power" anything, it needs a source of electrical energy, with some of that energy going into the H2 and O2 produced, and the rest wasted as heat.
Our criticism here is over H2 fuel cell cars, which cost over a half million dollars to make and are much less efficient than battery electric cars. I think you'll agree that an affordable plug-in with an efficiency of 76% is much better than a half-million dollar H2 fuel cell car with only 21% efficiency!
"Onboard electrolysis gas" may give a slight improvement in fuel economy to internal combustion engines, in exchange for a reduction in power and performance, it's up to you whether you feel that tradeoff is worthwhile. Personally, I think going light on the accelerator would be about as effective, easier, and less expensive.
Stanley Meyers was convicted of fraud in a court of law. He claimed his device would provide ALL the fuel a car needed, but it was bogus, his "water car" ran on hidden fuel. He took money for "dealerships" and payments for purchase, but never delivered any devices - that's what got him arrested and convicted. The court tested his supposed "water car" but it didn't work. You should note that most of the electrolysis promoters are merely claiming improved fuel economy, unlike Stanley Meyers and David Dingle, they don't claim to "run on water only".
The laws of physics, including the laws of thermodynamics, are the way the universe actually works. Those laws are not man-made, we don't have that god-like power, They simply are, and there is no way to violate them. Both atoms and planets obey those laws precisely, that is why we can predict chemical reactions and plot exactly where a planet will be for centuries into the future. Any claim to violate any of those laws should be viewed with extreme suspicion and a demand for proof.
SteveCT 12:53PM (3/17/2009)
Are you effing kidding me? You're defending hydrogen simply because it actually is capable of moving a car?
So tell me, Sam, what other alternatives do you support? How about the Giant Rubber Band Car? The Flintstones Car? The Steam-Engine Car? Ford's old Nuclear Fission-Powered Car?
Honestly, just because something can work if you dump massive amounts of cash on it doesn't mean it's even remotely viable as a mainstream technology. Face it, Friedman was right on this one: hydrogen was twenty years away twenty years ago, and it's still twenty years away now.
For hydrogen to happen, we will need:
- breakthroughs in hydrogen generation efficiency
- breakthroughs in hydrogen storage
- breakthroughs in making hydrogen safe for consumers to use
- breakthroughs in fuel cell efficiency, which maxes out at 60% efficiency (compared to 75-85% efficiency for an EV from plug to wheels)
- massive amounts of money spent on hydrogen infrastructure, despite the fact that we already HAVE an electric grid
- breakthroughs in fuel cell materials, which currently make the cost of fuel cell vehicles absurdly high (something you rarely mention here at ABG, I might point out, despite the constant harping on the cost problems for EVs)
- breakthroughs in fuel cell lifetime (because they only last for about 3 years for an average American driver)
In fact, if Friedman was wrong, it's because he was too optimistic about hydrogen fuel cells, given the numerous huge obstacles the technology faces, especially given that it's competing with technologies that are much closer to being mainstream and face nowhere near the kind of hurdles hydrogen does.
Reply
jake 1:16PM (3/17/2009)
Depends on how you define "commercial reality" also.
Anyways it was just one sentence out of an article that had another valid point. No need to make too big a deal out of it.
I'll agree though comparing hydrogen to fusion isn't fair. Hydrogen is much closer to reality and is well tested compared to fusion. Hydrogen just needs to work out some infrastructure and costs problems (which by no means are trivial problems) but for the most part they work.
Reply
DasBoese 9:25PM (3/17/2009)
Eheh, amusingly enough, it's the other way around:
Nuclear fusion is much closer to reality than hydrogen, for exactly the reasons you mentioned!
Exactly because hydrogen has been well researched, we know that it can never be competitive. The cost and infrastructure problems you mentioned aren't just non-trivial, they are in fact nearly impossible to overcome.
With nuclear fusion, we know that worst-case it's about as economical as fission, but there are a number of ways to achieve it that are potentially much better which we haven't looked at, or have been capable of understanding only very recently.
Guess it really is an unfair comparison.
NeilBlanchard 1:42PM (3/17/2009)
Hi,
The problem with hydrogen is that it is NOT a fuel -- it is a storage medium.
To get hydrogen -- in a "green" way, you need to use a renewable energy (solar, wind, wave, tidal, geothermal, etc.) to split water. Then you have to store the hydrogen, and then put it in the car in enough quantity to run it for a reasonable distance.
Hydrogen is essentially equal to electricity, in how it fits into the energy scene; and electricity is a lot easier to deal with, I think.
Reply
jharlan 1:47PM (3/17/2009)
You have a big problem to overcome here. We don't want HFC cars. Did you hear that? We don't want them! We want PEVs, PHEVs, Modern diesel hybrids, Modern tech H4 vehicles, even biofuel vehicles. H2 will have to have BIG BROTHER cram it down our throats or we just won't buy HFCVs.
We will start considering HFCVs when the initial and operating costs are lower than a modern EV or hybrid. The middle of the next decade, huh? OK, bring it on. I can be convinced, but I need evidence that this technology will be economically sound, and so far you have failed to make your case. There is a lot of demand inertia here to overcome. One E storage breakthrough and HFCVs will be a footnote in history.
Reply
Throwback 2:54PM (3/17/2009)
Who is we? Posters on ABG? The average car buyer will buy what makes the most economical sense to them. While some folks on ABG can't wait to plug in their cars, most poeple have no desire to, they just want cheap fuel. If hydrogen can be made cheap enough people will buy it. I am not claiming to know if hydrogen has a future, but every car company is working on H2 fuel cell cars along with BEVs. That tells me H2 has a future.
harlanx6 3:12PM (3/17/2009)
Throwback you are correct. I can't argue that point. When that first really cool HFCV hits the showroom retailing for less than a PHEV and also has less operating costs, we will be convinced. I have an open mind on it, but believing they are going to be competitive by say 2015 is just too much for me to swallow at this time. Things can and will change by then, you can bet on it. It's a race for the next universally accepted transportation technology to become a reality. The fact that there is divergence in opinion says it's not over yet.
Chris M 5:18PM (3/17/2009)
You're right, Throwback, cost is THE issue for the average car buyer. But H2 fuel costs $8 ot $10 per Kg, the energy equivalent of a gallon of gasoline, so H2 internal combustion is out. The efficiency of H2 fuel cells is about twice that of IC engines, making the per mile fuel cost of H2 only slightly more than gasoline - assuming H2 is never taxed. On the other hand, the per mile cost of "electric fuel" is about 1/4 to 1/5 the price of gasoline or diesel. On a per-mile basis, electricity wins over H2, and always will.
But a much bigger issue is the cost of H2 storage and the even greater cost of H2 fuel cells. The cost of H2 storage alone is more than the cost of a LiIon battery pack, and at $5 per watt a small automotive fuel cell costs about $400,000.00 and over half that cost is for the platinum required.
Now, I can imagine someone paying slightly more for a plug-in to get a much lower fuel cost, but I really don't see anyone paying a half million dollars to get a higher fuel cost and reduced performance.
harlanx6, you're dreaming. Plug-ins are a fraction of the cost of H2 cars, and while future research may reduce the cost of H2 cars, it will also reduce the cost of batteries. Since batteries are 3x more efficient at storing energy (85%) than electrolysis/H2 storage/fuel cells (23%) the "fuel" cost of plug-ins will always be much less.
harlanx6 8:54PM (3/17/2009)
I am not dreaming Chris M, I agree with you completely and I am impressed with what you know about it. At this time a modern diesel PHEV would be my first choice (If the *&^%$# manufacturers would get off their A** and offer it). 90% of my travel would be on E alone. When E storage tech catches up with the demand, we won't need thew diesel anymore. You always make sense to me. What did I say to make you think I was dreaming? What do these guys know about hydrogen that makes them think it will ever be able to compete? Beats the hell out of me!
Chris M 3:36AM (3/18/2009)
Sorry, harlanx6, i misread your post and typed too quickly - it's been a busy day.
I apologize
Lou Grinzo 4:52PM (3/17/2009)
Sorry, but all the hydrogen critics are right. It's a ridiculously inefficient and expensive way to make a vehicle move down the road.
For all the details, see Ulf Bossel's paper "Does a Hydrogen Economy Make sense?" (http://www.efcf.com/reports/E21.pdf) in which he does a very detailed analysis of the energy consumption in HFCV vs. EV operation. Bottom line: EV is exactly three times better.
Why do we care about the relative efficiency? Simple: Climate chaos is getting so bad, and our understanding of it is evolving so quickly, that we will be very hard pressed to get the maximum mileage possible (no pun intended) out of our zero-carbon electricity generation. We won't have the luxury of consuming a lot of those clean electrons needlessly for HFCVs, even if we can somehow overcome the enormous cost and logistics of building out the needed H2 infrastructure (which is one heck of an assumption).
Reply